Apr
19

Why Socialism and Wealth Redistribution Don’t Work and Cause MORE Poverty, Inequality, and Injustice

By

Those rich people don’t need all that money. They don’t pay their fair share of taxes. And a lot of good can be done if all that money is taken away from those people, who don’t need it anyway, and is given to other less fortunate people so that they can have better opportunities to advance their lives.

The above paragraph seems to be the essence of liberal economic thought. I realize that many liberals these days object to the notion that what they really want is socialism. However, arguing nomenclature is of no substance. Therefore, I’m just going to say that the philosophy described above falls under the umbrella of socialism, and just call it that.

We can argue fairness all day long, but for now I want to tell you what happens when socialism or whatever you wish to call it, is deployed in an attempt to correct the perceived economic (or “social”) injustices of the world.

Many people who support socialism, do so because they want a fair, poverty free world, with justice for all. Therefore, if you support socialism, i.e. wealth redistribution and a large government that deploys a heavy set of social programs to achieve all that, I would just like to let you know of the following:

The socialist methods deployed to supposedly achieve a better world unleash an AVALANCHE of negative side effects that utterly dwarfs any of their original intentions, and brings more poverty, more inequality, more injustice, less prosperity, and more misery. This is because those methods go against an essence of human nature that cannot be changed even by people with the best of intentions.

Yes, socialism exacerbates the very problems it claims to solve.

Disagree? Then read on!

Unintended Consequences of Socialist Policies

There are several reasons why socialism, and specifically wealth redistribution by means of taxing the rich, does not work. All of these reasons stem from one important fact of life:

People have a strong desire to do whatever is in their own perceived self interest!

The following are detrimental unintended consequences of socialism that stem from the above fact and undermine everything socialism is meant to accomplish:

  • Much of the money that goes to the government ends up being wasted, resulting in ineffective government programs, and less wealth for EVERYBODY. Learn more.
  • Many are tempted to assume that money collected by the government goes to help the poor and downtrodden. However, much of that money ends up in the hands of the rich and politically connected, those who have the most resources and ability to lobby for it. Learn more
  • Socialism concentrates money and power in the hands of the government. When government grows, the greedy and corrupt don’t go away. Conversely, they now have a more powerful tool in their hands, the government itself. Learn more
  • The richer you are, the easier it is for you to avoid increasing taxation and leave the bill to the middle class. Learn more.
  • A soak-the-rich, high tax strategy inhibits the economy. And who is hurt the most by a slow economy? Not the rich! Learn more
  • The transfer of earned wealth that socialist policies mandate are a detriment to entrepreneurship and innovation. Entrepreneurship and innovation are driven by the potential for material rewards. If we take away or reduce the material rewards, we’ll have less innovation. Less innovation means less of all the cool, useful, and life-saving stuff we all love. Learn more
  • High taxes and government regulations make it more difficult to start and grow a business, thereby leaving much greater opportunities for those who are already rich and have the resources to overcome those difficulties. Learn more
  • Social programs create more demand and need for those very programs in a self perpetuating cycle because given government handouts, people come to expect and rely on them. And therefore, you can never spend enough, because the more you do, the greater the need to do so becomes. Learn more
  • Social programs are a disincentive to work and act responsibly. After all, if some or all of your needs are taken care of, and if someone else picks up the tab whenever something goes wrong, why would you worry about such minor details as work ethic, productivity, financial responsibility and family obligations? Consequently, when productivity takes a downturn, leading to a shrinking economy, guess who suffers… everybody! Oh and as always, the rich suffer the least. Learn more
  • A combination of the above points causes a vicious cycle of decreasing revenues and increasing demand for social spending that results in a socialist government running out of money and having ‘no choice’ but to perpetuated tax increases to every level of society, rich and poor. Learn more

Because of the avalanche of problems socialist policies cause, no amount of social spending and taxation will ever overcome the problems it is supposedly set out to solve.

The Road to Poverty, Inequality, and Injustice

The Price of Socialism

Because of the avalanche of unintended consequences, socialist policies are at best extremely limited in what good they can do. Yet, many politicians represent those as some grand solution to humanity’s problems and completely neglect all the problems socialist policies cause. This is akin to touting a “miracle” cure for cancer, yet failing to mention it causes blindness, brain damage, and eventual cardiac arrest. Socialism’s avalanche of unintended consequences cuts deep into any benefits that society might derive from social programs. And anyone, especially voters and politicians, should be aware and honest about the real price that socialism demands.

First, there is little chance that, on average, a middle class person would come out ahead with government entitlements he/she receives after subtracting all the extra taxes and economic costs he/she bares for those entitlements. This is because, the government can not raise enough revenue just from those considered rich to cover the cycle of decreasing revenues and increasing demand for social spending brought on by socialist policies. We only need to look at the high level of taxation on the middle class of European social democratic states to see this is indeed the case.

If you are not a person who is poverty stricken, and you’re not going to run a welfare scam, then do not believe for a second that the government will take from the rich on your behalf. You will pay through income taxes, payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, inflation etc.

And then there are the poor. They earn too little for the government to take anything of significance, and can come out ahead in dollar amount given aid from the government. It’s great for them if they’re perfectly happy being perpetually impoverished, living the austere life at a near subsistence level given to them by the government.

But overall, the poor will also pay a price! And so will everybody else… but as always, not so much those who are very rich. This price is lesser economic opportunity. Yes, the very thing that the socialists supposedly champion for the poor. More specifically, we have greater unemployment and less business opportunity. Western Europe for instance, with all its socialist policies and supposed compassion, has boom-time unemployment rates that are roughly what the United States gets during recessions.

And to top it all off, there’s the price of slowed innovation, entrepreneurship and technological advancement.

Conclusion

The government can either completely help a small number of people, or slightly help a large number of people. What it absolutely can not do is completely help a large number of people. It’s just impossible to expect a small minority, i.e. the rich, to support the rest of the population. It cannot happen! The government can’t solve everybody’s problems. It has never happened, and never will happen.

But mustn’t we help people in need? Yes, we should help some who can’t take care of themselves. However, the more money we spend on this via the government, the more significant the unintended consequences become, devastating not just those whom we want to help, but many others. And therefore, wealth redistribution and social programs are not the answer to some great society and a better world order and should be kept to a minimum. But unfortunately, when faced with poverty and social problems, the socialist response is even more socialism, the very thing that makes those problems worse.

If you are reading this and you are a rich Hollywood type who supports Barack Obama, the socialist in chief, or perhaps you think that Obama is not socialist enough, then in the name of fairness, I accept donations of a million dollars, or any other amount, so that I won’t have to be personally affected by the damages of socialist policies. You don’t need nor deserve all that money anyway. Seriously, I know you weren’t going to give it all to a charity. So in the name of fairness, contact me here to make arrangements. And since the donation is 100% voluntary and doesn’t involve the government, it won’t suffer from all those pesky unintended consequences.

Otherwise, if you are not a rich Hollywood type, then good luck with all of the above.



Tiny alternate link for this article: http://tinyurl.com/n47hr8

117 Comments

1

bravo, you are the sole voice of reason right now.

All you have to do to show that socialism doesn’t work is open a history text book to the USSR chapter and actually read it. But for some reason people just seem to have forgotten about the mistakes our friends Ivan and Gerry made and just assume socialism is the one size fits all cure to their problems. HA!

I make 1984 references to my peers all the time, and they never seem to understand what I’m saying and just brush me off as some hack who doesnt understand “how the world works” when theyre just bandwagon liberals who just listen to whatever that idiot from Greenday saids.

This was probably written awhile ago, but I’m so ecstatic to have found this. I’m an art student at a very liberal state school and I get this Liberal stuff shoved done my throat all the time. Thank God there’s some reason left.

End Rant. Good job btw.

2

This is an excellent article. I just recently found your site researching points to give to my liberal Aunt. EXCELLENT post! Keep up the good work!

3

This website is what happens when you let privileged children who have never connected with the world of work have a website.

I’m not going to even bother with you except to say this: the biggest wealth redistribution system in place right now is in the corporate boardrooms where a few highly-stuffed pigs decide when and where and who gets to work for them and if they don’t like it, we’ll just ship the jobs to countries that are even MORE repressed than America.

The American workplace is totalitarian, the economic system of capitalism is corrupt and obsolete, and also dying. That’s why America is turning into a 3rd world country, it’s because of what capitalism unchecked does to a government and its people.

Live with it, learn it, because it’s happening right now, today, and your puny little attempt to make a few buck before it folds is laughable.

-Wexler

4
Capitalist in Chief
November 29th, 2009 at 10:51 am

This website is what happens when you let privileged children who have never connected with the world of work have a website.

Live with it, learn it, because it’s happening right now, today, and your puny little attempt to make a few buck before it folds is laughable.

Your attempt at logic and reason is laughable! So which one is it? Am I a privileged child, or am I attempting to make a few puny bucks here?

5

“The American workplace is totalitarian, the economic system of capitalism is corrupt and obsolete, and also dying. That’s why America is turning into a 3rd world country, it’s because of what capitalism unchecked does to a government and its people.”

You’re right William, it has been corrupted. Without the right laws or morals, greed will take over. What is needed is not the government robbing one person to “help” another person, but what is needed is a return to following God’s laws. Only with the right rules and reasons for living is there any hope for a stable economic system.

6
Capitalist in Chief
January 2nd, 2010 at 8:48 pm

The American workplace is totalitarian, the economic system of capitalism is corrupt and obsolete, and also dying. That’s why America is turning into a 3rd world country, it’s because of what capitalism unchecked does to a government and its people.

1. Yes, Karl Marx said something similar, yet it’s his philosophy that became obsolete.
2. Unchecked capitalism? What here in the U.S.? You surely have got to be kidding! We’ve got Social security, food stamps, government paying for a total of %50 of health care expenditures, FDIC, SEC, anti-trust laws, OSHA, FDA, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, minimum wage, unemployment benefits, family leave act… should I go on?

7

Wexler,

You sir, are apparently a feckless and bitter ass. There is nothing more obsolete, corrupt, or ineffectual than the socialist model. To hell with the so called “Vanguard”. Up with liberty. At least the people have constraints. Guess you believe in global warming, and the conferring of rights to enemy combatants/terrorists, too.

8

“But mustn’t we help people in need? Yes, we should have a basic social safety net for those who can’t take care of themselves.”

Sorry, but I have to disagree with this. You can’t draw lines because people will ALWAYS take advantage of this. Read up on Austrian Economics at http://www.mises.org if you are interested in why ANY form of social security, no matter how ‘necessary’ anyone deems it to be, is bad.

9
Capitalist in Chief
February 12th, 2010 at 4:40 pm

Sorry, but I have to disagree with this. You can’t draw lines because people will ALWAYS take advantage of this. Read up on Austrian Economics at http://www.mises.org if you are interested in why ANY form of social security, no matter how ‘necessary’ anyone deems it to be, is bad.

I agree that people will ALWAYS take advantage of this, however any type of government spending will ALWAYS be taken advantage of, yet do we argue about abolishing any and all government, including military spending? There IS a line to be drawn, otherwise we must not have any government at all.

10

What makes any public services any more necessary than others? The line is always going to be arbitrary and up for debate because you won’t find a single person who agrees exactly what public services should be provided and how they should be provided. It’s definitely something to think about, consider exactly what a government does that is so necessary and could not be done privately.

11
Capitalist in Chief
February 19th, 2010 at 7:37 pm

I agree that the exact line is up for debate. However, there is a line, and it’s not set at zero government. That much we know. Few people would argue, for example, that there is no need for executive and legislative branches of government, courts, law enforcement and military. All of these are prone to abuse and corruption. Yet we have them, and in all likelihood, their absence, despite whatever abuse exists, would do much more harm than good.

The construction of public roads is an example of a government program whose necessity is perhaps a bit more debatable, however arguments are strong that the private sector would not fair very well. Free market competition is impossible as any road can only have one owner, plus the logistics of collecting payment would be a nightmare.

Similarly, I would not completely rule out some social spending. Yes, government will always attempt stupid things, such as perhaps paying for free needles for drug addicts… (Oh, have some compassion.) But maybe subsidized schooling for low income blind people is acceptable, for example.

And therefore I think the key to all of this is to limit taxation and government spending. For as long as those are low, society could benefit form government, and the negative side-effects of socialism (and just plain government spending as well), as detailed in the article above, would be small.

This way of course, government won’t be able to help everybody nearly as much as socialists want, but it can’t do it under full blow socialism nor any stage in between anyway, which is the whole point of this site.

12

Thanks very much for publishing this article (and for all of the subsequent comments). I find myself continually frustrated by uninformed ranting on both sides of this debate, so it’s always refreshing to see opinion backed by articulate, sound argument.

I am always on the fence about what I think the role of government should be in this country. While I wholeheartedly believe that our healthcare system is in dire need of reform, I can’t help but feel a bit uneasy that the passage of the Bill is an overstepping of boundaries. Private insurance companies certainly need to be checked, and I think that it has to be the government’s role to make sure that they aren’t profiting at the American people’s expense. However, I don’t believe that government should be interfering to the point that they begin to take over as providers of an essential service. That being said, I can’t stand those who cry “Armageddon” over its passage. Whether it ends up hurting or helping us is yet to be seen, but it serves no constructive purpose to make unfounded claims that it will ruin America. Instead, skeptics should use their energy to educate and be educated, looking to the author of this article as inspiration. Don’t spread fear and misinformation, spread knowledge and figure out how to make our country stronger.

My point of posting was less about voicing an opinion about how our government should operate, and more about expressing my genuine belief in the American system. Constant debate and checks and balances are the reason we have been so successful, and without them we would surely crumble. In recent years, we have seen some of the worst side-effects of capitalism, and a backlash was inevitable. Many corporate entities have blatantly overstepped boundaries without any observable sense of the common good. Obama and the Democrats are now pushing vehemently in the opposite direction, and in their attempt to re-level the balance, they will likely go too far. The beauty is that their opponents will only gain support and power if their policies don’t work. In this way, we’ll go back and forth correcting one another’s mistakes forever.

13

a lot of socialist final goal to it get rid of a the government so it would just be the people that ran the country. and if you had real socialist in the government then it hopefully wouldn’t become corrupt, even though there will always be corrupt people when there are greedy people. but if you have righteous people then i dont see how u could say socialism doesn’t work, go read the communist manifesto and tell me there aren’t good ideas in there to benefit the working class, and to that guy talking about Russia needs to look beyond a history book and see that Russia was not really a socialist country and read about cuba and how socialism is working there. people need to look beyond there history book and read about the real history of stuff because we all know what history book are full of lies, people also need to look beyond the t.v. and do independent research to see what they believe not just what the government tells them to believe,

14
Capitalist in Chief
April 24th, 2010 at 10:03 am

a lot of socialist final goal to it get rid of a the government so it would just be the people that ran the country.

Who are “the people” and how would they run things. Somebody has to be in charge at some point and we call that government. Are you saying that a socialist’s final goal is anarchy?

and if you had real socialist in the government then it hopefully wouldn’t become corrupt, even though there will always be corrupt people when there are greedy people. but if you have righteous people then i dont see how u could say socialism doesn’t work

It’s because there are no righteous people that can run everything indefinitely. And corruption is just one problem socialism faces. There is no “real” socialism and “fake” socialism. It’s all the same. The first is the unrealistic theory, the second is what comes out when it’s implemented.

go read the communist manifesto and tell me there aren’t good ideas in there to benefit the working class

I have, there aren’t.

and to that guy talking about Russia needs to look beyond a history book and see that Russia was not really a socialist country

Yes it was. The theory of what socialism should be like is in your head, the practice is what happened in the Soviet Union.

read about cuba and how socialism is working there

It’s working miserably.

people need to look beyond there history book and read about the real history of stuff because we all know what history book are full of lies, people also need to look beyond the t.v. and do independent research to see what they believe not just what the government tells them to believe,

And serious independent unbiased study would lead to the fact that socialism is a miserable thing.

15

It’s because there are no righteous people that can run everything indefinitely. And corruption is just one problem socialism faces. There is no “real” socialism and “fake” socialism. It’s all the same. The first is the unrealistic theory, the second is what comes out when it’s implemented.

i meant by that people who wouldn’t become corrupt, i know there aren’t that many out there and i will be the first to admit that there are socialist out there that would be just as corrupt as anyone else. are you trying to tell me that there are no corrupt people in capitalism.

about Cuba i need to change what i said because Cuba never claimed to be socialist there were Marxist and when they over threw the county they need help running it so they worked with the communist but they never claimed to be socialist they were just labeled that. Cuba inst as bad as most people think they have free school they aren’t a lot of homeless people. food is really cheap and they have free health care i could list more but people should do research and not list to the propaganda against Cuba and other county’s are government feeds us

And serious independent unbiased study would lead to the fact that socialism is a miserable thing.

i didn’t mean reading peoples independent study because i believe there isn’t such a think as a unbiased study because to be unbiased they wouldn’t have an opinion on it and to not have an opinion they probably wouldn’t care and if they really didn’t care they wouldn’t do a study on it. i meant people need to read from alternate news sources and not believe everything the new and government tells them, people need to research both sides and they decided what they believe.

16
Capitalist in Chief
April 28th, 2010 at 12:02 pm

i meant by that people who wouldn’t become corrupt, i know there aren’t that many out there and i will be the first to admit that there are socialist out there that would be just as corrupt as anyone else. are you trying to tell me that there are no corrupt people in capitalism.

There are corrupt people everywhere. Socialism brings out more potential for corruption because:
1. It concentrates government power and puts it in the hands of the few.
2. It leaves people in charge or other people’s money and lives.

about Cuba i need to change what i said because Cuba never claimed to be socialist there were Marxist and when they over threw the county they need help running it so they worked with the communist but they never claimed to be socialist they were just labeled that.

Marxism and communism are types of socialism.

Cuba inst as bad as most people think they have free school they aren’t a lot of homeless people. food is really cheap and they have free health care i could list more but people should do research and not list to the propaganda against Cuba and other county’s are government feeds us

Cuba is a very poor country. Their free health care is of very low quality. To get decent care one has to either bribe or know someone. The Cubans are very lucky that food is really cheap there because they can barely afford it as it is with the meager wages they earn. Castro and his family are living a good life though.

17

Somebody hit my website from here today.

Speaking of capitalism, how’s that “drill baby drill” thingie workin’ out for ya?

Idiots.

You talk about the evils of government and then when something happens that should have been more closely regulated by government, you either blame government for not doing enough or you cry out for help, or BOTH.

I forgot that I had posted here, so it was fun to read the article above (total bullshit) which ends with a shoutout for money. How’s that working for ya? If capitalism works the way it should, why would anybody PAY you for what they can get for free? Either here or in any barnyard.

Funny stuff.

-Wexler

PS Western European nations and Canada have been living in various degrees of socialism for decades. If you ask them what they think of it, they’ll tell you they like it and wonder why the US is so out of touch with its own people.

18
Capitalist in Chief
May 3rd, 2010 at 1:56 am

Speaking of capitalism, how’s that “drill baby drill” thingie workin’ out for ya?

It’s working out just fine. If you don’t drill here, you buy it from someone who’s drilling elsewhere. I suppose you’d rather pay the Saudis for their oil. And then you have to transport the oil with those big spill-prone tankers.

You talk about the evils of government and then when something happens that should have been more closely regulated by government, you either blame government for not doing enough or you cry out for help, or BOTH.

The oil industry is already heavily regulated. How’s that workin’ out for ya?

I forgot that I had posted here, so it was fun to read the article above (total bullshit)

Your website is where all the B.S. appears.

If capitalism works the way it should, why would anybody PAY you for what they can get for free? Either here or in any barnyard

What in the world are you talking about?

PS Western European nations and Canada have been living in various degrees of socialism for decades. If you ask them what they think of it, they’ll tell you they like it and wonder why the US is so out of touch with its own people.

So what? Smokers like to smoke, but it doesn’t mean it’s a good habit. The Greek loved their socialism too, but for some reason… I can’t quite figure out why… they’re cutting back. Oh I know why… they ran out of money… oops! Better luck next time. And besides, if you ask people in the U.S. if they’d like to pay as high taxes as Europeans do and live their life styles, they say no and wonder why the Europeans are driving themselves into the ground.

19

“What in the world are you talking about?”

I’m talking about your request for money, naturally. Why should anyone pay you for what they can get free?

You and I may disagree on the role of government but I think there’s no way even a poorly maintained website like mine is inferior to this POS. I’m doing documentation work, you’re spewing opinion, which has already been proven wrong. The righties had the last 30 years to run the economy to the brink of disaster, which is exactly what y’all did.

Your position is based 100% on greed and is anti-social. You don’t belong in a country, you belong out in the mountains living by yourself. Frankly Libs are crackpots but I do enjoy Ron Paul more than Dick Armey. That’s not saying much.

Good day.

20
Capitalist in Chief
May 3rd, 2010 at 8:53 pm

I’m talking about your request for money, naturally. Why should anyone pay you for what they can get free?

A. It’s a joke. B. It’s not a request in exchange for anything they’re getting.

You and I may disagree on the role of government but I think there’s no way even a poorly maintained website like mine is inferior to this POS. I’m doing documentation work,

Riiiiiiiiiight, your potty mouth and a site that does nothing but personally attack people is waaaay better than anything here.

you’re spewing opinion, which has already been proven wrong.

Really? Proven wrong? How exactly? Calling Bush Hitler doesn’t count.

The righties had the last 30 years to run the economy to the brink of disaster, which is exactly what y’all did.

Riiiiiiiiiight, just the “righties” ran things for the past 30 year, including the 18 years of Democrat majorities in Congress, the Clinton administrations, and Democrat run mortgage companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And also to “fix” things we’ve got 2 years of Obama with LASER like focus on jobs… LASER!

Your position is based 100% on greed and is anti-social. You don’t belong in a country, you belong out in the mountains living by yourself.

Right back at you. And you can take your bad-mouthing and personal attacks elsewhere.

21
Capitalist in Chief
May 8th, 2010 at 5:40 pm

If you can’t take the heat, you can ask it to leave.

It has nothing to do with being able to “take the heat”. (What are we in high school?) It’s just a waste of time.

22

look.. sad fact of the matter is that things don’t work.. i’m so far to the right, I begin to look like I come from the left, but honestly, who cares.. I work for the man.. and the bastard is corrupt, I don’t know what else to tell you.. but it is still so.. as far as obama or anything else government related, who cares? one group of criminals or another, it does not matter to me.. eventually american business will be regulated out of existence and subjected to enough BS to cause mass chaos.. then the thing that should have begun ages ago will get started..

Just like war, social discontent serves one main purpose.. to remove human lives to equate resources.. as long as the resources exist to keep people alive *poverty be damned*, little will be done.. if a massive plague or war breaks out, I can’t imagine that current governmental ideology is going to shift, just saying.. but keep people healthy and keep those babies coming on this planet, and then we might get enough ‘population pressure’ to cause catastrophic failure.. better get some beater equipment and something to power it with sooner rather than later, just in case the babies keep coming.. LMAO
D

23

PS, wanted to add.. if anyone wants a REAL answer… just to let you know, if you are looking for answers, and expecting The Man to supply them for you.. good luck w/ that.. LMAO

24
Capitalist in Chief
May 9th, 2010 at 1:33 am

look.. sad fact of the matter is that things don’t work.. i’m so far to the right, I begin to look like I come from the left, but honestly, who cares.. I work for the man.. and the bastard is corrupt, I don’t know what else to tell you.. but it is still so.. as far as obama or anything else government related, who cares? one group of criminals or another, it does not matter to me.. eventually american business will be regulated out of existence and subjected to enough BS to cause mass chaos.. then the thing that should have begun ages ago will get started..

“The man” of business and “the man” of government are both corrupt, but they’re not both the same to the extent that the nature of the balance between them doesn’t matter.

25

The whole premise that socialism is a “wealth distribution scheme” is based on a straw man argument.

For those of you who don’t already understand what that is, just substitute “lie”. The lie is that anyone has suggested that wealth should be redistributed in the US. For example, nobody has suggested that everyone should be paid the same amount of money for work. Nobody has said that wealth shouldn’t be accumulated. Nobody has said that the government should own all private enterprise.

Nope. Those are the lies of crackpot jugheads who are trying to distract you from what the real issues are by making it into something it’s not about. What is it REALLY about, then?

There are certain tasks that are best fit for government rather than private enterprise. For example, the government does a pretty good job at police and fire departments, public libraries and schools, the military (well, OK, maybe not so much the military). But even the epic FAIL of the military has been policy, not the readiness of our troops, their weapons systems, etc.

Because of the dramatic changes in the world political, economic, technological, and communications, there have been more tasks that have cropped up that the Founders never dreamed of. For example, who would have thought back in the mid 1700s that we might have 10,000 aircraft in the air during any given week. Or who would have thought back then that we could drill holes in the bottom of the sea that could destroy the ecosystem of the Gulf with one accident? Who would have thought that hundreds of new consumer products would be introduced every day, with varying degrees of engineering expertise behind them and some with lethal errors? OR the MRI, or the link between tobacco and cancer, or nuclear waste dumps, and so on and so on.

As you can see, the simplistic babbling of “Um, it’s not in the CONSTITUTION, MAN” is just a moron’s copout. So is the straw man argument of putting a “socialist” or “liberal” label on it and hope that Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh can make it go away. No, the fact is that those problems need real solutions instead of dishonest and foolhardy divisive non-arguments that are just designed to protect the interests of the HAVES over the HAVE NOTS.

Oh, now I’m talking about CLASS WARFARE???? Yeah, I am. The upper class has been waging war on the lower class and they are winning. They are driving the mean wage down. They have shipped our jobs overseas. Follow the money, it’s moving UP THE FOOD CHAIN, not any other way.

So I’ve gotten off track a bit, I even get fooled into the false dichotomy now and then. What we really need is for people who have good heads on their shoulders to sit down with real proposals for solutions. We don’t need mindless yammering about whether it’s “socialist” or not. Good grief, to hear Beck and Limbaugh talk about it, EVERYTHING is “socialist”.

Their chicken little act is growing old, and they have goaded the right into some strategic blunders that are going to change the course of history this November. The blockage of real Wall Street re-regulation and extension of unemployment benefits are the death knell for the GOP. Glenn Beck can kiss his kiester aloha over trying to hold a white supremacist rally on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial on the anniversary of Dr. King’s “I have a dream” speech. The backlash will be furious.

My advice is biblical, even though I’m an atheist. Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind. America is getting very angry, and it’s not at the “socialists”. It’s at the people at the top of the food chain that are pulling everybody’s chain.

-Wexler

26
Capitalist in Chief
July 11th, 2010 at 1:26 am

Getting a little bored there on your website Wexler?

The whole premise that socialism is a “wealth distribution scheme” is based on a straw man argument. For those of you who don’t already understand what that is, just substitute “lie”.

Socialism and wealth distribution? *SARCASM* I don’t know what you’re talking about. They’re of no relation. *SARCASM*

The lie is that anyone has suggested that wealth should be redistributed in the US.

Really? Nobody suggested that?

Barack Obama: “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

And how about Obama appointee Donald Berwick: “any healthcare funding plan that is just, equitable, civilized, and humane, must, must, redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and less fortunate.”

For example, nobody has suggested that everyone should be paid the same amount of money for work. Nobody has said that wealth shouldn’t be accumulated. Nobody has said that the government should own all private enterprise.

That’s the straw man argument, a “lie” for those who don’t understand. Nobody suggested that socialism is only a problem when it’s at a 100%.

27

There you go again.

You just can’t be happy unless you’re taking a 15 second sound bite to “prove” your argument rather than actually proving it. This paucity of intellectual honesty shows that you don’t actually care about the issue at hand, you just think that you can “prove” it with a sound bite.

Since you basically ignored my entire post, and instead attempted to steal the argument with two sound bites, I’m going to declare victory. That is, unless you want to get off your sorry tucus and give it a real shot like someone with a cranium full of firing synapses. You’re not worthy of the nonsense you posted. How about some sense?

For example, instead of dwelling on socialism as a “wealth distribution scheme”, which it is NOT, why don’t you address any of the points I’ve made about what socialism really is and how we do or do not need it to solve problems of the 21st century? Yes, I know that would be too much like a discussion but maybe you could try it, just once? Rather than pulling a cheap trick?

What do you think? You have my rapt attention.

-Wexler

28
Capitalist in Chief
July 11th, 2010 at 10:58 am

There you go again.
You just can’t be happy unless you’re taking a 15 second sound bite to “prove” your argument rather than actually proving it. This paucity of intellectual honesty shows that you don’t actually care about the issue at hand, you just think that you can “prove” it with a sound bite.

Really? So somehow you saying that “the lie is that anyone has suggested that wealth should be redistributed in the US,” and me showing video clips of Obama and his appointee saying just that is not proof and illegitimate.

And if that wasn’t part of the issue at hand, why did you present it saying that “the whole premise that socialism is a ‘wealth distribution scheme’ is based on a straw man argument.” Nah, it’s a minor unimportant part. It’s only that the whole premise of the other side’s argument rests upon it.

29
Capitalist in Chief
July 11th, 2010 at 11:11 am

There are certain tasks that are best fit for government rather than private enterprise. For example, the government does a pretty good job at police and fire departments, public libraries and schools, the military (well, OK, maybe not so much the military). But even the epic FAIL of the military has been policy, not the readiness of our troops, their weapons systems, etc.

The implication that resistance to socialism means resistance to all government services and intervention is yet another straw man argument. I’ve seen it a million times. See here and here.

As you can see, the simplistic babbling of “Um, it’s not in the CONSTITUTION, MAN” is just a moron’s copout.

Why have a constitution then?

Why did the lefties use the “um, it’s not in the CONSTITUTION MAN” argument with respect to the patriot act? I suppose when you personally like what the government is doing, then it’s a moron’s cop-out, but when you don’t then it’s unconstitutional.

At least the patriot act was passed into law by Congress, unlike the oil drilling moratorium, which can be struck down as unconstitutional just by that fact alone.

Because of the dramatic changes in the world political, economic, technological, and communications, there have been more tasks that have cropped up that the Founders never dreamed of.

The Constitution has two mechanism to deal with “the dramatic changes in the world”:
1. New amendments. Yes they are difficult to pass, but they’d be more urgently need and passed more readily if the government didn’t just ignore the Constitution anyway.
2. The 10th Amendment. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

30

Heheh,

Show me the clip where Obama and his economic advisers made a statement of public policy where we are all going to now have some kind of wealth distribution scheme. You’re being ridiculous. Unless you are totally devoid of intellectual honesty, a point which I am beginning to ponder, you can’t seriously believe that an off-the-cuff comment made to “Joe the Plumber” during a campaign rally can be considered to be public policy. OR do you? If so, please get HELP.

I’m not accusing you of resisting all government services and institutions, I’m TELLING you what socialism is not. You’re attempting to re-define it into your narrow point of view that it is income re-distribution, which it is definitely not. Can we talk honestly, please?

I’m glad you mentioned the USA PATRIOT Act, which has and always will be a serious erosion of American’s liberties. Your side (I don’t know about you personally) seem to think it’s OK, all the while out there waving pocket Constitutions and pictures of Obama as Hitler.

Do you actually understand the purpose of the Constitution or are you being obtuse? The Constitution has been amended 27 times including the Bill of Rights that Bush pretty much trashed at will. But that’s not the point here. We’re talking about what’s socialism and what’s not, and what’s in the Constitution.

Maybe you should read the Preamble. Read what the purpose of government is. Promote the general welfare. Sound familiar? That’s the part of the Constitution you want to ignore. That part and the part that states that darkies are only 3/5 of a human being. What you try to do is make the case that unless it’s stated in the Constitution, it can’t be done.

Tenthers… please read. http://catbus.tumblr.com/post/177220857/radical-right-the-rights-tenther-constitution

DISTORTING THE DOCUMENT: Tenthers derive their narrow vision of the Constitution from a strained reading of the Tenth Amendment, which provides that the Constitution contains an itemized list of federal powers and anything not contained in that list is beyond Congress’ authority. In the tenthers’ eyes, Congress’ powers must all be read too narrowly to allow most federal statutes to exist. However, the tenther constitution bears little resemblance to the words of the document itself. Contrary to tenther claims that federal spending programs like Medicare or Social Security are unconstitutional, Article I of the Constitution empowers Congress to “lay and collect taxes” and to “provide for…the general welfare of the United States,” which unambiguously authorizes it to spend money in ways that benefit the nation. Similarly, Congress’ broad authority to enact regulatory schemes that “substantially affect interstate commerce” easily encompasses laws like the federal minimum wage and the requirement that businesses do not discriminate on the basis of race. As Roosevelt chided tenther-like conservatives from his era, “The Constitution of 1787 did not make our democracy impotent.”

A LEGACY OF RADICALISM: Sadly, tentherism’s assault on democracy is nothing new; indeed, retreat to outlandish constitutional theories is a favorite tactic of the right during times of historic upheaval. Tenther “state sovereignty resolutions” are little more than new names for the “interposition resolutions” enacted by southern states in the immediate wake of Brown v. Board of Education, which claimed that the federal government exceeded its constitutional authority when it extended the Constitution’s promise of “equal protection of the laws” to the American South. Tenther claims that health reform is unconstitutional — because the Constitution does not specifically use the words “health care” — echo the infamous Southern Manifesto’s argument that Brown was wrong because the “Constitution does not mention education.” Much of the intellectual framework for tenther assaults on economic regulation comes from discredited Depression-era Supreme Court decisions that struck down essential provisions of the New Deal on the grounds that they exceeded Congress’ lawful authority. Indeed, conservatives even justified the greatest act of treason in American history, the Civil War, by claiming that that the Constitution permits each state to leave the union at will. Now that America is slowly emerging from its most recent crisis, tenthers once again hope to exploit the nation’s fears to fuel a radical constitutional agenda.

31
Capitalist in Chief
July 11th, 2010 at 12:05 pm

I’m tempted to answer you, but it is apparent from your statements, that you live in a parallel universe where the rules of reason are different. So go ahead and declare “victory” if you’d like. I’ll let the readers decide. I’m not here to convince the likes of you of anything anyway.

32
Capitalist in Chief
July 11th, 2010 at 12:29 pm

For the sake of completeness, here’s a clip of Obama lamenting that the Supreme Court hasn’t gone into the business of redistributing wealth:

I’m going to let my dear readers decide whether I’m crazy for saying that socialism is about wealth redistribution and that’s exactly what those in the Obama Administration are working toward more of, or whether W. W. Wexler is crazy for saying that it’s not the case.

33

Actually, what you’re for is the redistribution of wealth UPWARDS…

let your dear readers look at the facts and they will see that the standard of living in the US has been going down, not up. Wealth has been moving up the food chain, not down it. There are more people living below the poverty line than ever before. Millions of homeowners are under water and in foreclosure. Unemployment is at Depression levels.

So who has been redistributing the nation’s wealth and where has it been going? Has it been evaporating? Have the poor conspired to steal it from the rich but still live as paupers to stay under the radar?

What parallel universe do you live in? In my universe there is no socialist threat from the government, least of all Obama, who is possibly to the right of George W. Bush on almost every policy. His tools Geithner and Summers are toadies with ties that go back a decade with Wall Street insiders. The only people who postulate a socialist plot are people like Glenn Beck who are trying to make money off of it and the people who have been used by him. Which are you? I see you’re trying to make money off of lying to people by hawking Conservativo-wear, so it must be the latter.

I don’t have to “declare victory”. I think I’ll just let you live in a fantasy world where up is down, left is right, and so on. I’m happy to try to help persons such as yourself comprehend the world around you, but some people just can’t be helped.

And you don’t WANT to help us, either, as we face the real possibility of environmental catastrophes, complete economic failure, two useless wars, and the plight of the unemployed who are losing their homes and getting ready to lose their patience. Instead of helping, you want to stand at the sideline like a little puppy yelping “socialist socialist socialist” like some kind of demented mantra which you may or may not believe but if you can get other people to buy your shirt you’ll be happy.

The ship you’re on is the political version of the Titanic. We all know it’s going to slip in, and you want to make damn sure everyone knows it was the socialists who did it.

LOL

34
Capitalist in Chief
July 11th, 2010 at 2:07 pm

In my universe there is no socialist threat from the government, least of all Obama, who is possibly to the right of George W. Bush on almost every policy.

Obama is a leftist socialist, and what we see today is exactly the resulting outcome of socialism, crony government and lack of prosperity. If not Obama then who? Somehow someday a true socialist is going to lead this nation into utopia? That’s the real laugh (LOL). It never has and never will happen.

35
Michael K. MacGonegal
August 13th, 2010 at 8:45 am

One of the many, many papers I wrote while working on an advanced degree in political science dealt with why socialism fails. Succinctly, it comes down to efforts to promulgate socialism in any given society quickly morphs into Caponeism. The term I used, Caponeism, recognizes that as the essential foundations of capitalism, which does raise all boats due to individual efforts, lends a nod to Al Capone who ran Chicago during a period of the 1920s and 1930s. By the way, Capone’s legasy of illegal practices still exists in Chicago which is the most corrupt and generates the most corrupt systems and politicians in our great republic. As soon as capital ism is replaced with socialism those in power take the power, lie to the people by indicating they are doing for the people, limit any exchanges of power and wealth, reward their minions with the power and weath they are redistributing from the hard working folks to the slackers who agree and support their own ends. Sound familiar? In the case of the United States of America, Caponeism is take place of capitalism without even a moment wasted on socialism.

God Bless America,
Mac

36

Caponeism. It sounds like Zapatero here in Spain.

“[...] reward their minions with the power and weath they are redistributing from the hard working folks to the slackers who agree and support their own ends.”

Just like here, Zapatero is buying votes from independentist parties, useless syndicates, radical-feminism, and an endless list of grants from out hard earned money.

37

There is no Virtue in Socialism, and “truth” is based not on fact, but on emotion. Excellent article. You would make Dr. Franklin proud!
James Ward, Author of WEALTH VIRTUES

38

If Capitalism,Socialism, Communism all fail what is it to be done?What road can humanity go on?

39

Please, before you draw conclusions, look to the scandinavian model. Large, influential state institutions truly help. This has made Scandinavia, and Norway, the countries with the highest standard of living in the world. It has been scientifically documented that equality creates a better society. Scandinavia was never drastically socialist, so think what would happen if these countries turned more radically socialist? Communism or socialism, for that matter, has never been tried in a government before, not in it’s true form. Many of you may think that the USSR and China, Cambodia, Cuba, North Korea were and are socialist or communist. This is not true. These countries are ruled by an elite, and in China’s case, a corrupt government driven by capitalism. Communism is really a direct democracy, a society where there is no state, no private ownership, no currency, only equality, brotherhood and a functioning community.

40
Capitalist in Chief
November 25th, 2010 at 11:42 am

Please, before you draw conclusions, look to the scandinavian model.

I did. See here.

This has made Scandinavia, and Norway, the countries with the highest standard of living in the world.

Scandinavia is not a country, and Norway is a tiny homogeneous country with huge oil and natural gas reserves. How convenient for them.

It has been scientifically documented that equality creates a better society.

Scientifically documented by whom and how? I’d like to see the controlled experiment for that. And besides, who said that equality is a bad thing? However, the socialist methods deployed to achieve it have terrible side effects that ruin societies and bring them to equality through poverty.

Scandinavia was never drastically socialist, so think what would happen if these countries turned more radically socialist?

They’d be worse off.

Communism or socialism, for that matter, has never been tried in a government before, not in it’s true form. Many of you may think that the USSR and China, Cambodia, Cuba, North Korea were and are socialist or communist. This is not true. These countries are ruled by an elite, and in China’s case, a corrupt government driven by capitalism.

It has been tried. But it hasn’t worked as intended because it can’t. It always ends up in a powerful corrupt government.

Communism is really a direct democracy, a society where there is no state, no private ownership, no currency, only equality, brotherhood and a functioning community.

The above is impossible to implement in the real world.

By the way, you know that pigs have never tried flight before, not in its truest form. Many think that pigs have tried flying but this is not true. In every one of those alleged attempts of flight by a pig, the pig just fell down and ended up as a bloody mess at the bottom. If pigs would only avoid falling down and getting killed, they could fly.

41

I recommend everybody who trust in the Socialist dream to try to make a living in my country (Argentina, Latinamerica).

Peronism (Socialism with different clothes on it)ruined our country and now is rotten to the core.

It’s pointless to write the fails of this system but at the same time, it’s good to remember them.

so, what has socialism done in Argentina?

* People who wants social plans ($) instead of working for the money.
* Once people get the plans, they give votes in return.
* Wipe out almost all of the middle class.
* More crime, and criminals with more rights than honest people (we are actually falling like mosquitos due to the violence wave)
* No justice, no congress. Everything’s decided by the “President” only.
* Massive ilegal inmigration to gather more votes.
* Inflation: Prices for water, electric power, gas, meat, vegetables, technology products, clothes, EVERYTHING’s extremely expensive and keep on rising but my job’s payment sadly doesn’t grow up.

… for the middle class, as high society is a good friend of the government and low class, of course, living with social plans.

* High taxes for everyone who wants to start a small business.
* TAXES, TAXES, TAXES !!

I’m going to finish this comment with something really important to all of you:

If this president or anybody with this idea wins next year, I’m leaving my country and never return. But if I leave, it will be with all the papers in order as a legal inmigrant, I’ll work for the good of that country, I’ll learn it’s language, accept it’s culture, etc.

That’s the truth of the socialism movement, I give my warning to you, don’t trust it… it will destroy your nation as it happened with mine.

Comrades, working for the people !! = Bullsh*t, I know what phrases like that mean.

42

I cannot help but laugh at your completely biased and ignorant view of things. I may have shaped my thoughts a little unclearly, but you just make yourself seem even more ignorant, if possible, by misinterpreting and thinking up stupid examples. By the way, did you know that, although it may seem hard to understand by someone with your biased mind, it is possible to change the world. It is possible to change peoples attitudes, no matter how much you may strive to deny it. If we take the example of Fidel Castro, one of the bravest men in The history of The world, did he ever think that there is no point in trying to overthrow Batista, The murderous USA-sponsored dictator because people had tried and failed before? It is only as western countries become more socialist that there is increased standard of living. Would you rather we go back to the industrial revolution where workers rights were non-existent and the corrupt elite controlled the state and the economy, in the pure capitalist sense? Capitalists were the ones who profited from slave trade. Capitalists were the ones who fought universal suffrage. Capitalists are the ones who support Saudi-Arabia, Egypt, Jerusalem and countless lyger collaborating regimes. I would recommend you to have a look at this site
http://www.hermes-press.com/germany1930.html
You can safely ignore most of it, but numbers dont lie, and if you have a little look at the definition of fascism, the US isn’t far off.

43

Have a look at the book The Spirit Level: Why Equality is Better for Everyone for documentation.

44

Absolutely all the speculation in this article is exactly that – speculation. None of it has any basis WHATSOEVER in either truth or science, statistics or documentation. Therefore this article cannot be trusted to either be accurate or serious, for that matter.

45

Sorry, Israel.

46

Don’t you dare call the Scandinavian model a failure. It is anything but, there is a reason the countries have the highest standard of living in the world, with or without petroleum. I can feel this better than anyone, as i live here. There is also a reason as to why unemployment in the US, in Greece, in Ireland, is record-high, closing on 10%, while in Norway, The failed country, it is a steady 3%. What a failure, as we also take into account the crime rates and level of education.

47
Capitalist in Chief
December 21st, 2010 at 11:39 pm

You suffer from delusions

There is also a reason as to why unemployment in the US, in Greece, in Ireland, is record-high, closing on 10%, while in Norway, The failed country, it is a steady 3%.

What might that reason be? Is it because Noway has all but two white guys named Sven that are lucky enough to sit on huge reserves of oil and natural gas?

48
Capitalist in Chief
December 21st, 2010 at 11:40 pm

Absolutely all the speculation in this article is exactly that – speculation. None of it has any basis WHATSOEVER in either truth or science, statistics or documentation. Therefore this article cannot be trusted to either be accurate or serious, for that matter.

You think that because you suffer from delusions.

49
Capitalist in Chief
December 21st, 2010 at 11:42 pm

Have a look at the book The Spirit Level: Why Equality is Better for Everyone for documentation.

So what? All your precious socialist methods deployed to achieve equality lead to ruin.

50
Capitalist in Chief
December 21st, 2010 at 11:44 pm

cannot help but laugh at your completely biased and ignorant view of things. I may have shaped my thoughts a little unclearly, but you just make yourself seem even more ignorant, if possible, by misinterpreting and thinking up stupid examples.

You think that because you suffer form delusions.

51

Wow. Your best argument is that i suffer from delusions? Really? Wow. You truly are not worthy of my time. As we see and as i experience more recently, since the 70′s Norway, and the rest of Scandinavia no longer has a totally homogenous population. Denmark may be an exception, but Norway’s liberal immigration-policies are very much like the American policies in early days. Believe it or not, it’s a success. Not all non-whites Are as evil as you may believe. They do NOT come to the western cultures to maim, steal and murder. They come to get a better life. Norway obviously has a lot of natural gas and oil reserves, but do we use it all at once on socialist programs? The answer is no. Our oil-fund is now over 3.000.000.000.000 norwegian kroner, one of which is around a sixth of a dollar. We use minimal amounts of this, and oil is not necessary, as we see in Sweden. Am i delusional because i see no facts or documentation in your article, and therefore it cannot be trusted? This is a very basic error, and anyone can tell you the same thing. It is all just speculation, and if i show you documentation of the opposite you call me delusional. I live here. I am experiencing it. Therefore, please shut up if you don’t know anything about a subject.

52
Capitalist in Chief
December 22nd, 2010 at 9:38 am

Wow. Your best argument is that i suffer from delusions? Really? Wow. You truly are not worthy of my time.

That’s exactly how I feel about you. Not worthy of my time because you’re a delusional idiot. You don’t have your facts or basic logic straight and your statements are full of straw men. Norway may have had immigration, but it’s still over 90% ethnic Norwegian so please shut up if you don’t know anything about anything.

http://www.country-details.com/europe/norway.php

In addition it has nothing to do with non-whites being evil as “I may believe.” It has to do with a homogeneous cultural mind set that’s conducive to socialism.

You can take your smug delusions about how tiny homogeneous Scandinavian countries are representative of socialism in the general case and stick them in the North Sea.

Norway obviously has a lot of natural gas and oil reserves, but do we use it all at once on socialist programs?

And oh good for you… not all at once!

53

Really. I am impressed. If i do not have my facts straight, what can be said about you, i wonder. No references to neutral articles or statistics, only references to more of your biased, unfounded articles. First of all, you once again ignore the whole of my earlier statements and choose only to address matters irrelevant and try to find a reason to call me a delusional idiot. I have to ask you. Why is it that child mortality rates in terrible Cuba are lower than in the US? Have you ever been outside of your house, let alone your miserable country, and seen how the world really works, or do you just like to spew biased statements and prejudice over the internet? At least i have both references and experience, you have no such thing. Why is a multicultural society a problem? In Oslo the area with a highest minority percentage is also the happiest. A homogenous population is no guarantee for success, let’s all move to capitalist China, it’s so much better than Norway!

54
Capitalist in Chief
December 22nd, 2010 at 10:06 am

Oh, yes, “capitalist” China and wonderful Cuba. And the moon is made out of cheese. Bye bye!

55

Jesus, your stupidity infuriates me. You are truly one of the biggest idiots I have ever met.

56
Capitalist in Chief
December 22nd, 2010 at 10:25 am

The Cuban infant mortality rate is a very common socialist propaganda tool.

http://www.overpopulation.com/articles/2002/cuba-vs-the-united-states-on-infant-mortality/

Good job comrade!

57
Capitalist in Chief
December 22nd, 2010 at 10:28 am

Jesus, your stupidity infuriates me. You are truly one of the biggest idiots I have ever met.

This is exactly what I would expect a delusional communist to think. Here here comrade!

58

Why did you delete my comments? Don’t want your ignorance to be pointed out? I truly feel sorry for you. It cannot be easy to be devoid of both intellect and honesty.

59
Capitalist in Chief
December 24th, 2010 at 11:14 am

It’s because you spew worthless idiocies and you think you’re so smart. There are places for the likes of you such as the Huffington Post. You may want to go on posting there where you’ll be welcomed with open arms. The more sorry for me and ignorant etc. you say I am, the better I’ll feel about myself and the lesser I’ll think of you. It’s really pointless. I’d be truly worried if someone with your delusional thought process liked what I do or have to say.

60
The China Man's Hat
January 10th, 2011 at 11:17 pm

When you say Socialism doesn’t work, why do you mean by “work?”
I ask, because if you look at Communist China their assention to the title of the world’s number one super power looks inevitable. The USA owes them a crippling debt, and they also seem to have the best of both worlds as they have a Capitalist economy but a Communist work force that have to work for whatever they’re told to work for. How can the USA or any other economy compete against that?

61
Capitalist in Chief
January 10th, 2011 at 11:28 pm

Yes, and everyone on the planet could also all kill themselves and that would work perfectly to solve all of humanity’s problems.

Oh, and it’s right there, linked from the top of the home page: http://socialismdoesntwork.com/what-does-that-mean/

62
The China Man's Hat
January 10th, 2011 at 11:58 pm

Sorry but I don’t really understand your answer. I’m genuinely interested to hear your thoughts about the inevitability of Communist China becoming the world’s number one super power and how America can stop them or at least compete with them.

63

“Communist work force that have to work for whatever they’re told to work for”

Congratulations moron, you just admitted that in a way or another you like this form of enslavement, or that in a way or another it is a form of enslavement.

Socialism, a way to make slaves and trick then into being happy about it.

By the way i live in Brazil so i know socialism/communism very well, people here who receive government help, sleep all day long and don’t want to work, even when work knocks at their door, all they do is to have more children so they can get more money from the government, they don’t mind living in poverty as long as they don’t have to work or make any effort.

The government is very corrupt, the sons of our last president where common people before dad got power, now they are millionaires, in 8 years they became more rich than companies that exist for decades, sure the government is honest, only morons like you believe that.

There is no way to stop those who want money and power from getting to positions in a government, even more because those people are in general very good at manipulation, so nobody know until its too late.
In here if you are in the government you can buy all the law you want and never gets punished.

In Brazil there is no opposition to socialism because all the partys here are socialist in a bigger or smaller degree.

The quality of life looks better now than some years ago, and the people like this, but liberties are already being taken from us, the communists here are getting more and more power, they are even involved with Colombian terrorists (FARC), they are trying to silence the media so they can rob us as much as they want, we are basically tax slaves and there is no security, the police is equally if not more corrupt that the government they serve, want to see some pictures from the tanks fighting the drug dealers who work for some very rich and powerful people, probably at the government it self???

All socialists/communists are fucking naive idiots, fact…

And i am not rich, i am middle to lower class, the difference is that i am not a ignorant who is happy receiving help from the government like a dog fed by the owner.

I think that all communists/socialist shit in this world should go live in Cuba or North Korea and stop trying to turn the rest of us into slaves like they are.

64
The China Man's Hat
January 12th, 2011 at 3:52 pm

Um…I was just telling it like it is. I didn’t say anything about liking it.

“they are even involved with Colombian terrorists (FARC), ”

FARC? lol.

My point was that it looks inevitable that Communist China is going to become the world’s number one super power and I’m wondering what the USA can do to stop that from happening.

As for my politically leanings I’m all about personal responsibility, liberty and freedom.

65
Capitalist in Chief
January 12th, 2011 at 3:59 pm

Sorry but I don’t really understand your answer.

China’s ability, using slave labor, to produce plastic trinkets by the ton and apply its earnings to buy US debt is no testament to the success of socialism, at least not in any meaningful way a socialist would consider… I don’t think.

66
Capitalist in Chief
January 12th, 2011 at 4:01 pm

I’m genuinely interested to hear your thoughts about the inevitability of Communist China becoming the world’s number one super power and how America can stop them or at least compete with them.

The US could stop spending and regulating itself into oblivion. If it does that, the freedoms it offers can out-compete China’s army of slaves any day.

67

didnt read the whole thing, but to say pure socialism wouldnt work is absured granted a pure socialisim setting would require ppl to have some type of morals and only take what they would need, but seeing as there are no examples socialism is alot more promising as a theory then in actual application. with that said capitalisim, and to the ppl who think we are pure capatalist think again there is no form of pure anything only what the ppl who control it make it out to be

68

The US could stop spending and regulating itself into oblivion. If it does that, the freedoms it offers can out-compete China’s army of slaves any day

give me a break most of thiere citizens and defnantly the army worship the dictator so they are far from slaves

69
Capitalist in Chief
January 12th, 2011 at 6:59 pm

give me a break most of thiere citizens and defnantly the army worship the dictator so they are far from slaves

I don’t understand what you said here.

70
The China Man's Hat
January 12th, 2011 at 10:20 pm

“The US could stop spending and regulating itself into oblivion. If it does that, the freedoms it offers can out-compete China’s army of slaves any day.”

So what regulations should they get rid of and which ones should they keep?

And do you think they should cut down on military spending?

71
The China Man's Hat
January 16th, 2011 at 6:24 am

“The US could stop spending and regulating itself into oblivion. If it does that, the freedoms it offers can out-compete China’s army of slaves any day.”

So which regulations should they get rid of and which ones should they keep?

And do you think that they should reduce military spending?

72
Capitalist in Chief
January 16th, 2011 at 1:30 pm

So what regulations should they get rid of and which ones should they keep?

Here are some of the major ones to cut –
Obamacare, and much of the pre-existing health care regulations.
Regulations preventing development of new energy sources in the U.S. such as nuclear power plans and oil drilling.
And the ultimate regulation of them all should be greatly simplified: The tax code.

And do you think they should cut down on military spending?

Yes.

73
The China Man's Hat
January 18th, 2011 at 5:04 pm

What about worker’s awards, should they have them?

74
Capitalist in Chief
January 19th, 2011 at 11:02 pm

I’m sorry, what are worker’s awards?

75
The China Man's Hat
January 22nd, 2011 at 9:21 pm

You know, government regulations specifying what the minimum wages and conditions are for various occupations. Should those regulations be in place or do you think bosses should be able to pay their workers whatever they like?

76
Capitalist in Chief
January 25th, 2011 at 10:14 am

Yes, minimum wage laws do more harm than good. Even welfare makes more sense than minimum wage.

77

I used to be a public school teacher. Then I wised up and realized socialised anything, let alone education, in The United States of America is a problem. Unfortunately, our government is not responsible with our money. They haven’t been for a very, very long time now. I can’t see turning over complete control to them as beneficial for anyone. Maybe I’m judging them to harshly, but I’m leaning more heavily towards, not.

I remember a time as a teacher when I was attempting to correct a malevolent student. I asked him “What do you want to be when you grow up?” His response, “I’m gonna be on welfare.” At the time I thought he was simply being obstinate. However, I pondered the statement and eventually conducted non-scientific research by asking more students the same question. 42% believed being on some type of “government assistance” was better than working for a living. 6% knew where the money actually came from to pay for such “government assistance”.

I believe their answers were not only a testiment towards the quality of our government ran educational system, which by the way is one of the biggest wasters of tax dollars, but a testiment towards defunct family values. Actually, a testiment of a society who is, in as nice a term as I can think of, mentally ill.

The facts are that socialism in theory sounds great, but inevitably corruption and greed increase. Also, other people’s money will run out. When that happens, well, look at Greece. Riots and chaos occur causing the government to send in the troops to “stifle” the uprising. Then it’s no longer socialism but fascism or communism that occurs. Or, a bailout, which will and had made things worse. However, the government could be defeated and anarchy becomes the norm. In my opinion, no one wins. Capitalism, in any form, is better than socialism. Human beings are naturally free thinkers. We love free will. We love freedom. I believe we as Americans need to move back the other way towards the Republic that was intended. God bless America, no, God help us.

78

Omg, damn socialists !!!!! STOP CALLING IT LIBERAL !!!!!!! Liberalism is something completely else: free market, individualism, civil rights (and income guarantee isnt part of it),… so :-) please stop calling it liberal in the USA :-)

79

“the US, in Greece, in Ireland, is record-high, closing on 10%, while in Norway, The failed country, it is a steady 3%. What a failure, as we also take into account the crime rates and level of education.”

Bob, i also am a Norwegian, but what you say is not correct. Unemployment in the Countries you mention is high, BECAUSE of socialism.

Norway has a hidden uemployment rate of 10-20 %, maybee more, because of different methods of registrating the unemployed. In Norway, we have so much oil-money that we can actually afford to give the unemployed “uføretrygd”, (a social payment for those who have different disabilleties) without them actually being disabeled. Thus giving the illusion of Norway having a low unempoyment rate.

The socalled “playing with numbers” have been under much debate in Norway.

The levels of crime rates is as you say, low in Norway. But to give credit for this to socialism is wrong. Norway has historically has low crime rates, long before socialism existed.

The educational system in Norway is also under much debate, and in my opinion, we need more privatication. I you take a look at different ranks of the best schools in the world, Norway only has a couple of them, way down on the list. Dispite our extreme wealthiness.

80

“BECAUSE of socialism.”

Let me refraise that: Because of corporatism, fascism and sosialism.

81
Capitalist in Chief
February 13th, 2011 at 8:39 am

LOL “Not named Sven” LOL! Thanks for your comments. When I went to high school, we actually had an exchange student from Norway named Sven.

82

Hey, I agree with this website wholeheartedly. i come from a socialist country called Sri Lanka which went through an ethnic conflict which killed more than 80,000 people in 3 decades. And we have been socialist for 4 decades So socialism didn’t work and this article described the entire country perfectly. Capitalism all the way to hell with socialism. Corrupt governments shooting people. Hillary Clinton loves us though I wonder why…..

83
Britainthelandofthefree
February 25th, 2011 at 2:31 pm

It’s just wonderful to see redneck Americans who still think that the USSR are going to nuke America into dust arguing about their whole corrupt government and politics, while people go without medical care because they can’t afford it. England’s healthcare system is what America should strive for. Everyone is equal in getting healthcare, everyone gets it, it’s free, so no-one loses out just because some capitalist pig pays them minimum wage so he can take his fat wife and fat spoilt children to disneyfuckingland Florida. Personally, I hope Russia burns your shitty obese country to the ground.

Buenaventura Durruti: It is we, the workers, who built these palaces and cities here in Spain and in America and everywhere. We, the workers, can build others to take their place. And better ones! We are not in the least afraid of ruins.

P.S America just steal other people’s inventions and take the credit.

84
Britainthelandofthefree
February 25th, 2011 at 2:32 pm

Oh I forgot to mention, your self-claimed title ‘World’s only superpower’, is soon to be taken by China and India, good luck with that.

85

Socialism does exist in the USA, but it seems you guys never complain about it. The great blue state of California for instance only gets 78% of our federal tax dollars back spent in the state. How many of you would like 12% of your tax dollars going to welfare states like, say, Rand Paul’s Kentucky, which gets 151% of their fed tax dollars spent back in their state.
Can’t say I’ve heard peep from him about that redistribution of wealth, lmao. When you say that welfare makes it’s recipients bitter you got it right. ZERO of their taxes effectively leave their state (and LOTS of other red states btw), in fact 51% MORE than they’re taxed comes back to them in the form of jobs & services but Randy is bitter as hell. What will it take to get these lazy bums to pay their own way?
Let’s go tea party! Can’t wait to hear how them welfare queens will squeal when they either get only the taxes back that they actually paid or cut services by BILLIONS more. Put up or shut up Comrades.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/22685.html#ftsbs-timeseries-20071016

Let me know when the movement to require states dollars to come back to the hard working citizens who EARNED it. No? No surprise.

86
Capitalist in Chief
February 28th, 2011 at 11:29 pm

What will it take to get these lazy bums to pay their own way?

It will take the fools in the Blue States to stop voting in the politicians who take their money. Do you expect welfare recipients to happily give up the money they collect from welfare while the “hard working citizens who EARNED it” call for more? Does that sound reasonable? If the Blue States are upset about money going to the Red States, let them vote in politicians who care about cutting spending.

The great blue state of California for instance only gets 78% of our federal tax dollars back spent in the state. How many of you would like 12% of your tax dollars going to welfare states like, say, Rand Paul’s Kentucky, which gets 151% of their fed tax dollars spent back in their state.

Yes, they like it it California.

87
Capitalist in Chief
February 28th, 2011 at 11:31 pm

It’s just wonderful to see redneck Americans…

Back to the institution you go…

88

There you go… every one of you who has the balls to look up your own state & find yourselves on the in the vampire column, your fearless leader Cica thinks you’re a welfare queen too.

BTW, New York is getting screwed as bad as California is… some people like to complain about welfare, doing absolutely nothing about it when the rubber hits the road. Thanks for showing your true colors: another hypocrite complainer.

89
Capitalist in Chief
March 1st, 2011 at 9:57 am

another hypocrite complainer.

You’re the hypocrite. You love welfare, why are YOU complaining about it then when people take it?

I don’t ever expect people not to take welfare when it’s offered. It’s as unrealistic as Marxism itself.

Blue states love welfare and consistently vote for people who suck money out of them. They’re not being screwed. They’re getting exactly what they are asking for.

If we reduce welfare overall, the problem you’re complaining about will be gone. Why not do that? Hmmmm?

90
Johnny California
March 1st, 2011 at 2:00 pm

Britainthelandofthefree – The socialist healthcare system in England is as bad as your teeth. Just wait until you hit 50 years old and actually have to use it.

91

You have described what is happening today in the USA and there is so much you can push, so much you can take before the people rise and destroy the. Feudal overe lords… the day is coming where no more tribut will be paid (income tax )

Death to the US feudal lords. Viva the constitution viva the revolution

92

“Therefore, I’m just going to say that the philosophy described above falls under the umbrella of socialism, and just call it that.”

Pro-tip, Socialism is the abolition of exchange-value (this means money).

93

I’m an anarchist, but a free market capitalist, not a socialist, or any other kind of collectivist.

Nearly, if not all, services the government has a monopoly on can be provided by for-profit industry or charity. I find this site a fantastic resource, but I think many of the people commenting, including the gentleman who provided this wonderful site, are failing to follow their ideas to their logical conclusions.

I’ll drop a link or two here for everyone, and hope you give the articles a read, and do so with an open mind.

There is no uniformity of economics in anarchism, so in my view of Smith’s free markets, socialists can be free to exist…but they may not coerce others into their economically backwards way of life. Neither can the free market advocate coerce the socialists. Both will be able to exist, following a singular law “do no harm”. This IS a free market.

No one outlaws the Amish (a socialist collectivist group of religious fanatics who live a austere and primitivist lifestyle, in relative anarchism) in America. But if socialists took charge, the capitalist commune would be violently stamped out.

Indeed, even “anarcho” socialists try to say assert “anarcho capitalism isn’t anarchism, as capitalism is adverse to anarchy”…which is nonsense. Anarchy implies VOLUNTARY organization (not disorder, “consent of the governed”), a lack of coercion (compulsory rule, “the pursuit of hasppiness”), and a lack of uniformity. This lack of uniformity is key, as uniformity is only possible with violence and coercion…especially in economics.

Someone above attacked nullification at the state level…I’d like to ask socialists who oppose decentralized authority like nullification a question, prefaced by a statement:

If you have the (mental and physical) ability to govern yourself, then you have the right to govern yourself, and if no one else is harmed directly, then logically all external government is tyranny.

That statement asserts individual sovereignty, a notion that allows CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE (like MLK jr). In other words, as long as you hurt no one else, you may ignore any law you choose if you think it tyrannical, and any attempt to stop you is TYRANNY. So, since socialists love civil disobedience, as do I (it was invented by Henry David Thoreau, an American anarchist pre-Civil War era), then why is okay to practice this form of individual nullification, BUT when we do it COLLECTIVELY (something you would think socialists would love), you try to assert it’s racist, or psycho, or antiquated?

The state only get’s it ability to nullify from the individuals. They only have sovereignty derived from the individuals therein. If the individual could not nullify, then either could the states. When states nullify against the will of their populations (like with secession over slavery, and indeed, the entire institution of slavery at the state and federal levels), then that nullification is tyranny. ANYTIME THE COLLECTIVE TRUMPS INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS IT IS TYRANNY.

This is why I’m an unapologetic and radical Jeffersonian…and a proud free market capitalist.

Smash the State, embrace free markets.

94

Why Closed Borders Are Anti-Free Market

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=39959

Celine’s Laws

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=39996

Re: Does Nullification Lead to Anarchy?

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=39997

Trade Deficits and Open Borders: Good for the Economy

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=39999

Boudreaux on Free Trade: Trade Deficits and Borders

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=40027

Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act: The Economic Suicide of Protectionism

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=40091

Frederic Bastiat on the Fallacy of Trade Deficits

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=40117

Embargo Act of 1807: Jefferson’s Failed Attempt at Protectionism

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=40137

Stossel on Free Trade

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=40528

Thomas Paine in Support of Anarchism

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=40794

Traitors and Patriots: The Difference Between Nationalism and Patriotism

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=41076

Fixing Our Education System

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=41202

Statist Economic Fallacies: Breaking Through the Nonsense (Part I)

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=41436

Statist Economic Fallacies: Breaking Through the Nonsense (Part II)

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=41442

Statist Economic Fallacies: Breaking Through the Nonsense (Part III)

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=41450

An Open Letter to Ed Schultz and the Staff of MSNBC’s “The Ed Show”

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=41497

Spending Problem or Revenue Problem, or Both?

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=41544

Ending Intergenerational Tyranny: Extinction of National Debt

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=41726

I hope that helps someone. And I also hope I have not offended the provider of this great site by challenging his conclusions slightly. Overall, we agree, and I hope you can understand my criticism is coming from a place of genuine well-meaning. I’m not trying to debate with you, although your thoughts on my articles are welcome here or at the location I linked you too.

(Yes I know supporting the campiagn for liberty seems less than anarchistic, as anarchists are against government and voting, in principle…but in the case of that site, I am supporting a move toward what I desire (less govt), plus if I vote, I’m doing it in self defense. The worst tyranny (murder) is even acceptable in self defense.)

95

To the author of the article: – Do you carry a Dumbass License with you as proof of ID? Unreal the stupidity also with the comments made here by some politically uneducated morons who go around loving a system that keeps on screwing them over and over. This is the United States of Stupid, indeed, and getting stupider by the day… Will you right-wing fanatics open your brains and let some oxygen in there?

96
Capitalist in Chief
May 18th, 2011 at 9:42 am

To the author of the article: – Do you carry a Dumbass License with you as proof of ID? Unreal the stupidity also with the comments made here by some politically uneducated morons who go around loving a system that keeps on screwing them over and over. This is the United States of Stupid, indeed, and getting stupider by the day… Will you right-wing fanatics open your brains and let some oxygen in there?

Nice vocabulary! Where did you learn all these fine words?

Yes, under capitalism you get screwed. Under socialism you’re raped, beaten, and left for dead.

97
devout differentist
July 25th, 2011 at 1:15 am

I laughed so hard at this thread that At one point I spewed the water I was drinking all over my laptop which sucked. However, on a more serious note, ALL problems cannot be solved by choosing a side. democrat or republican; socialist or capitalist. An ideal government solely prevents unfair interactions between individuals or taking risks that could lead to unfair interactions. ( Some examples include killing others, stealing, destroying others property)

Many people want there personal morals/beliefs to be upheld with force by the government; this does not work because people have different morals/beliefs that would violate with the neighbors morals/belief (some examples of morals/belief driven countries that don’t work : the nazi’s believed that jews deserved to die because of there religion this was a moral opinion that hitler had and he convinced an entire country to go attack the jews. China and Russia and such do not allow people to have certain religions like christianity. we used to have slaves…for quite a while it was widely accepted that having slaves was ok, the civil war did NOT go down for the sake of saving blacks from slavery, in case of doubt just look it up. That was just one of the lesser things in the northerners schedule. if it were not for the true reasons for the war, we could still have slaves today!!!!)

Now I do admit that these are the more extreme cases but they wouldn’t have happened if the mentality of the government and people had been what I stated in the opening paragraph ( I’ll call it couchism because I am sitting on a couch). They would have said “Hey those jews have different beliefs then me and I don’t like them. I guess I will just keep believing what I believe and let them be losers.”

All morals should be enforced in the home. Herein would be the only exception to couchism because a father or mother can teach there children the morals they believe with reasonable force.(making them sit on the couch, a spanking, ect.) If the parents taught there children to do things that defied couchism, that is fine as long as they do not carry out any of those teachings. however, if they go out and steal from someone, the government enforces the law. However, please realize that if the parents really believed in this and, subsequently, carried out THEIR beliefs, the government would restrict them as well and thus the children would probably not be taught to do things this way and subsequently, THEY would not go steal from people because they were not taught they way. It’s a self perpetuating cycle of fairness!! haha.

Now, money comes into account. Money is a relatively direct function of work and an indirect function of risk and self denial.(Correct me if I’m wrong)

Lets start with a very basic example…if I go out and work for 5 hours at 10 dollars per hour at wallmart and my neighbor works for 10 hours at wallmart, my neighbor has FAIRLY made more money then me (room for correction perhaps but this makes sense to me); thus, money is a direct function of work. Now if I go out and work 30 hours per week and can buy enough food for myself and my neighbor works 15 hours per week and he cannot feed himself, the government WILL NOT BE TAKING MY MONEY AND GIVING IT TO HIM SO HE CAN FEED HIMSELF. Why? because he could have gotten off of his lazy bum and worked the other 15 hours per week to feed his own scrawny belly.(am I right or am I right?) Now if I work a harder job then him I should be paid more because I have to sacrifice effort and maybe health. if I work harder and longer then him I will make more money then him. I may even become “rich” and he may even become “poor”. If I am the rich man and I feel MORALLY inclined by what my parents taught me or what I may have picked up on my own to give the man money because he is starving I will do so. however, the government should not force me to give the man money. When the government forces me to give away my money I loose sympathy for the poor man and feel as if I am being forced to be morally correct because I am! If I act through my own free will I fell sympathy for the man and the man will be grateful for what I have done. Not only would the rich be less selfish but the poor would be grateful to them. But remember, me being rich is TOTALLY fair because I worked harder and longer.

A man winning the lottery is totally fair because he took the chance of losing when he bought that $1 ticket. If I buy something off of the stock market because I think the stock will go up I am taking a risk that it will not go up. Lets say I buy a million dollars worth of stock in jcpenny and sell it in 10 years for massive profits. Someone sold me those million dollars worth of stock and bought something else and I did him a favor and he did me a favor because he could then buy something else with that money and I thought it was gonna go up so I took the RISK that the price would go down. Also, I had to give some SELF-DENIAL because I could not buy something else I wanted with that money (like a ferrari!)

So basically, If I climb to the status of a multi-billionaire, I got there through WORK( I had to get the first million from somewhere) RISK (I could have lost money on the stocks and real estate I bought or the businesses I started) SELF-DENIAL (I could have, at any point along the line, decided I wanted to stop investing money and spend it on something that did not return me more money and I could get pleasure from (like a ferrari)) HOWEVER, every transaction I made benefited the other party because the trade would not have happened if he didn’t get what he wanted out of it. Just think of how many people I helped out on my path to being a multi-billinaire. It was completely fair. Now, if I decide to give my fortune away because I am MORALLY inclined to do so, I will. If I decide not to, thats ok also. If I decide to give my money to my children when I die, thats ok also. I know that they did not earn it through the ways that I have described above; But the money WAS earned fairly and those who it is given to could have refused it. The point being that I was not forcefully obligated to give it to anyone. Thus the wealth distribution would not be equal because that would be UNFAIR unless everyone did all the things described above with in equilibrium. (one man could work harder and have a lot of money while the next could use self-denial, spending more money on his businesses, and do a little less work to achieve the same amount of wealth). It allows for flexibility in each person’s life. “Life isn’t always equal but it’s fair”

The government would only need to make sure that unfair transactions did not occur. They would only need police forces basically and some administrative officials so that the police ran smoothly. The few politicians present must be totally committed to the betterment of the country and feel true loyalty to the system; they should be willing to do the job for nothing, although they wouldn’t have to. The checks and balances of the system would exist (I could use some ideas on this) THIS IS THE ONLY WAY TO AVOID EXCESSIVE CORRUPTION IN THE GOVERNMENT SYSTEM. Taxes would be imposed as for the purpose of law enforcement and no laws would exist that could not be enforced. everything that was not law enforcement would be privatized. Things run more efficiently when they are privatized because of competition. The amount of taxes that people would have to pay would be tiny compared to todays rates and would be equal percentages regardless of how much money a person makes. I think that a wealthier person would have to pay a larger amount (same percentage but more money because of more income) and there would be a sales tax. These taxes would probably be less then 2% each because of how little work there would be to do. If people wanted to give there money to those in need or with disability they would do so out of sympathy and sympathy would be more widespread. If you lost your job, your luckier brother could help you out for a couple of months while you found a new one.

I myself am a Christian and I have many moral beliefs that I wish everyone would follow. I often fail at them though and I cannot expect perfection from myself or anyone (although I can strive for it). One thing that I do not believe in is gay marriage; it is unbiblical and so on. I vote for gay marriage to be legal though because it is not an unfair transaction and moral grounds are all I have for voting AGAINST it. I’m not saying that I wouldn’t voice my values or opinion but I would not use legal force to fight it. Someone is far more likely to believe in something if they are convinced instead of forced to do so. All voting should be done with the couchist perspective on the rights that the government should have.

Not to be delusional, I know that this system will never come into effect and it is idealistic but I strive toward it in my voting and voice my opinions in politics and such once in a while. as one of my friends always says “We’re not in heaven yet!!” haha

Well this is getting pretty long and I have more I would like to add but I have run out of time. Sorry to rant and if you don’t like my proposed say why and I will be happy to discuss.

P.S. my spelling and grammar suck and I’m not a very good writer.

98

some pretty intresting arguments here but i noticed a trend. the pro socialists always try to change the subject when backed into a corner.

99

To the author of this article, thank you. This is a clear and rational article explaining the perils of socialism. I applaud those of you who attempt to defend socialism because you think it creates “fairness” and “equality,” however, your money and efforts might be better spent supporting a church or another private institution that is better able to see and address the real problems in this country.

To those of you who support socialism, I would like to ask one simple question. Why, and at what time in our nations history, did it become acceptable to take one person’s earnings and wealth and give them to another person? The fatal flaw of socialism is found in that basic concept. At the very moment someone believes that we should “take from the rich to give to the poor,” they become a thief (at least in their heart) and have violated one of the most basic tenants of a civilized society. Imagine the good that could and would be done if we didn’t spend so much of our hard earned money inflating the power and reach of government.

100

I am not sure whether the founding fathers of America voted for socialism, but my opinion is this: The only way that ‘wealth redistribution’ can happen legally, morally and ethically is by actually encouraging capitalism and free enterprise. As more people employ more people gainfully and productively, wealth redistribution happnens. The ‘goals’ of socialism are correct: that everyone should be able to enjoy the fruits of collective labor but the methodology used to achieve that goal is incorrect. It is capitalism that is the way to prosperity, abundance, bounty and happiness.

101

meaningful debate is not something that will be had in this particular comments section so i’m going to just point out that everything you said in yr article is a carbon copy of what i heard in attempt to debunk socialism when i was in seventh grade and that the first comment in response to it is from a guy who apparently routinely cites orwell (a devout socialist) to his jerk-ass liberal friends to attempt to *refute* socialism and leave it at that

102

must agree.get all the hard facts from Charles Murray’s book Losing Ground- American Social Policy 1950-1980 the only socialism thats going to work is when the Lord Jesus returns

103

I think alot of people have a false understanding of what socialism is and why it never worked. I am a liberal, yet I do not think socialism is the answer for the US. The problem socialism never worked in lets say in the case of the USSR was the corruption. The officials were said to be recieving the same amount of money as the working folk, although at the end of the day they would drive out of moscow to their mansion in the hills. Just because this portion of socialism doesnt work shouldnt condem all ideas of socialism. THere is alot of socialist ideas that I think would help the US tremendously.

The thought that every millionaire in the US has worked harder than the rest of us is purely a lie. Very little of the millionaires in this country actually have worked harder than the average worker in every sense of the word work. Taxation of the rich is imparitive for the US to get back on track. With declining needs for simple labor (because of tech advances) and increased amount of disparity from the higher paying jobs and lower paying jobs, TAXATION IS NEEDED. Why? you ask, because when taxes are raised on high tax brackets and they are given incentives to spend their money, guess who wins? EVERYONE!!!!(I will explain in a second) When the taxes are low for the rich and they have continuous loop holes that allow them to not pay any taxes at all while working families pay what little they have in taxes at the end of the year. When taxes are raised and incentives are givin for them to spend their money to get there taxes reduced, they will use that money to maybe put an addition on their home or if it was a busniess owner, to hire more help, or make an improvement to thier business which still makes their asset more valuable. Most Rep/Right wing people don’t look at taxation like this, they simply think the Dems/Left Wing are trying to take the money from the rich and give it to the poor. This is not true, this the propaganda from the right that has been repeated over and over to make people believe in this garbage. Everyone has to agree that it is easier for a millionaires son to become a millionaire, just like it is easier for a poor mans son to continue to be a poor man. Thanks for your time, I hope you give the ideas ive stated some thought.

Oh and another thing, I wanted to say this so everyone can understand, if you think that by taxing the rich makes people less motivated to work harder, your wrong, people will work harder no matter what if they want it, wheather if its 5 dollars more or 500 dollars more, just becuase they get taxed more doesnt mean they are going to be less motivated to make MORE than the next guy!

104

This Blog needs to be made into pamphlet form and distributed to every liberal in america Great job on this article

105
Cjhelwig23 at gmail
October 29th, 2011 at 7:12 pm

Nearly everyone is greedy by nature people don’t want Socialism they just want a chance. Monopolies run the United States and make it imposable for people to start business in some industries. These Monopolies have infiltrated the senate, House, etc causing the rich to get richer and the poor get effed over by passing bills etc that are not in the best interest of the people but for that corporations greed. Personally if I were to win 150 million dollar jackpot tomorrow I would only keep nearly a million and keep working a part time job or start some small business I enjoy on the side. With the other 149 Million I would do some good. No one needs more than a million dollars to be “Worry free” anything more is just greed. Live like a spartan we cannot take material with us.

Feel free to email me if you would like to debate this more but only people that don’t use personal attacks and slander. That is not debate that is just annoying and gets no body anywhere.

106
Cjhelwig23 at gmail
October 29th, 2011 at 7:25 pm

Our Government should be nothing more than our pimps we pay it for protection and it sometimes points us in the direction of a job. The Pimp that offers protection, welfare, food stamps, disability, cash assistance, unemployment, etc is a broke pimp and whoever replaces him may not be as kind.

107

guess I made a good point to have had my comments removed

108

I think some may enjoy reading Frédéric Bastiat’s “The Law”: http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

It is basically a philosophical treatise on the proper role of government. It favors a very limited government, arguing from the first principle of human rights and that the government’s role should no more than secure them. It is deist, if not Christian, though many of its ideas could be useful to those who are not.

109

Excellent webpage. Very intellectual, stimulating and very informative. I recently been on a research “kick” and I have been looking up the different models of societies. If one looks at history and compares socialism, capitalism … and so on, capitalism would be in the lead as the most successful. With that said (and this is strictly a philosophical question), Socialism has always failed in history, but, with the evolution of man kind, do you think that one day socialism would work or are we “eternally damned” to a competitive nature?

Also … (hehe) you a Ron Paul supporter?

110

This website (at least the comment section) is the prime example of what is going on in our whole country.

Someone with some sense proposes an idea, a well backed idea to say the least, which gets ripped to shreds by the left claiming that “The fat cats are what is destroying this country” or that “China is a rising superpower, they must have it right” or “when does socialism mean wealth distribution” or “equality is the best way to prosperity”.

Well guess what, our friends from Argentina, Brazil, and Sri Lanka have given real life examples of failed socialism, and every one of you all have ignored them!

As you all hopefully understand, the DEFINITION of socialism in the DICTIONARY says that socialism “advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.” Meaning that the government takes control of land, business, and (simply putting it) offers entitlements in exchange for higher taxes FROM ALL.

Todays world proves that socialism creates a welfare state, look at Europe. Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Ireland, all socialist countries who have lazy citizens who expect to retire at thirty five and survive off of government checks. The world economy is in turmoil due to the distrust the world has in these nations. Even look at the United States! Medicaid destroys work ethic, no wonder the poor never leave their class! they have no incentive to do better! They are being paid to live for free in the projects.

Although free market capitalism has its problems, it is the best way to achieve prosperity. That is final.

And getting into the whole China debate… The only reason that China is in the position it is in today is because it has corruptly, yet effectively has manipulated its currency. Government officials purchase land at cheaply set government prices and sell them on the free market to companies looking for tax breaks, resulting in enormous profit. On top of that they are hiring their workforce of a whopping 1.3 billion (1,300,000,000) people for barely nothing. So China is not a product of socialism but of corruption.

Quite frankly i would much rather trust those fat cats on wall street to create jobs than the government. With more money in the company’s hands rather in the government’s companies will have the opportunity to expand even more, thus creating jobs. As long as we give companies incentive to stay on our soil. This will work (proof during the good old ronald reagan days), and that is exactly why redistribution wont work, it doesnt create jobs, it just makes everyone lazy and destroys the American dream as a whole. People will have no chance to become sucessful, they will just take the checks like any other rats of the welfare state.

Noone can agree on anything anymore, congress is falling to corrupt politicians, if you’d ask me I believe the founding fathers are all rolling in their graves right now.

I believe i have said enough.

111

Worth the read below.
An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama’s socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama’s plan”. All grades will be averaged and …everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A…. (substituting grades for dollars -something closer to home and more readily understood by all).
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.. The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F. As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed. It could not be any simpler than that.
Remember, there IS a test coming up. The 2012 elections. These are possibly the 5 best sentences you’ll ever read and all applicable to this experiment: 1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

112

people are arguing more about the method of redistribution rather than the fact it is stealing, when you work and pay taxes for infrastructure like roads, fire, etc everyone benefits. outside of that you should enjoy the fruits of your labor. your not obligated to carry other people’s load for them, (tho you can their burdens however). in isreal the poor still had to work for their bread via gleaning which could take all day and was hard work. they could beg too, and many were helped in that way and they had family support as well who did and could work.

but it was voluntary. not forced at point of a gun. people are not being treated unjustly if they don’t have as much as another, unless you stole it from via fraud or a gun. we are responsible for our own upkeep, if we need help people who are doing better generally are willing to help, but to steal it via taxation, using the poor as a front for the theft well is just plain wrong. I noticed that the more nations stray from bible principles the worse they do, if they disobey laws on theft, covetuousness or adultury or having other Gods besides the creator, or murdering or commiting fraud they suffer consequences regardless if they believe in god, you don’t have to believe in a god to suffer death if you jump off a building because you believe you can defy the law of gravity. moral laws are the same, if you break them you suffer, regardless of your belief in a god or not. your reap what you sow, break god’s moral laws and you suffer corruption. those laws are as sure as the law of gravity or law of day and night.

113
Look Beyond The Veil
February 1st, 2012 at 2:07 pm

To the guy who said ‘ask the people in Europe if they’re happy’: I live in the UK, I’m well educated, my monthly net income is 19,000 dollars, the price of energy is so high I don’t heat my (rented) home, and I am sick of paying taxes, sick of the inflation, sick of the lame job markets, and sick of the fact that there isn’t even one libertarian state out of all the EU states.

To the guy who said that taxes don’t reduce the incentive to work, I’m living proof that this is plain false. I could work more hours but I choose not to because it would increase my tax burden disproportionately. In other words the net pay for these extra hours would be even less than what I get for the hours I do.

To the guy who said that England’s healthcare system is what America should strive for… First off, it’s not free since prescribed drugs are not free and everyone who works has to pay a supplement of income tax called the national insurance. Secondly I can’t say much good about this system. It almost failed to treat me for a problem that could have resulted in blindness, had I not gone to the hospital emergency department against the advice of my doctor. On another occasion I had to seek dental treatment outside the country just to get a proper level of care.

Health care in England is definitely not ‘equal for all’. Those who need good care and have money can use the private health sector or seek care in another country. In effect, they pay for their own health care two times, once to subsidise the public sector and once to get care in the private sector.

To the guy who created the site I say well done, and you can add to the list of socialism’s unintended effects the fact that it leads even good people to do bad things. People choose not to report all their income to the taxman. Others fake diseases and disabilities in order to claim benefits. Others claim that they are single when they’re in a couple. Others make babies just to get into public housing.

All of which lead me to believe that socialism is a creation of the devil. Lure men with promises of protection and easy reward, and then when they’ve succumbed kick them into submission with high taxes, high prices, unemployment and state dependence. Sounds like a job for the devil.

114

What is outlined above is why socialism has failed in the past, and why new methods of government must be devised.

It is NOT why socialism fails, but rather, the mistakes of the past we must learn from as we go into the future. Adapt Socialism, or whatever you want to call it, into a working form of government, not riddled with the problems above.

115
Look Beyond The Veil
February 1st, 2012 at 4:14 pm

*’my monthly net income is 19,000 dollars’
Sorry I meant yearly gross income. Monthly net is around 1,400 dollars.

116

This is one of the better articles I’ve happened to stumble upon. There are some valid points here and things we have actually seen in world history. I won’t go much into depth here as I don’t currently have the time, but I do think the views of democrats wanting complete socialism represents a very small fraction of them. And it isn’t as all bad as it seems. When we think about socialism, we always think about the failed state of the USSR and we think of a completely uniform society. The truth is that most developed countries use some forms of socialism successfully. In fact, the U.S. uses socialism when they collect taxes to build roads and bridges or pay teachers and police. The GOP gleefully points at Greece and Italy as countries whose social programs have dragged down its economy to the point of default, but actually that represents only one small factor. Looking at countries like Canada and Germany that have a much larger welfare state than Greece and Italy, yet have come through the global recession better than U.S., we can see that social programs aren’t the sole cause of Greece’s financial woes. Looking at recent U.S. history during the Clinton administration we can see that high tax rates on the wealthy did not negatively impact the economy, nor disenfranchise the rich. Although we don’t want total socialism in this country, a little socialism to balance wealth distribution better might be healthier for us in the long run.

117
Capitalist in Chief
February 19th, 2012 at 11:51 am

but I do think the views of democrats wanting complete socialism represents a very small fraction of them.

This doesn’t matter. Total socialism is not the only bad type of socialism.

When we think about socialism, we always think about the failed state of the USSR and we think of a completely uniform society.

No we don’t always think that. Soviet style socialism is not the only type of socialism that’s detrimental.

The truth is that most developed countries use some forms of socialism successfully.

No they don’t. Most of those developed countries are suffering from the negative side effects of socialism, which include dependence on government, reduced freedom, perpetuation and proliferation of a dependent under-class, and a reduced standard of living.

In fact, the U.S. uses socialism when they collect taxes to build roads and bridges or pay teachers and police.

Really? That’s how you view socialism, as building roads, bridges and paying teachers and police. If the U.S. had just stuck to those, there would be no need for this website. And besides, the US spends the second most amount of money per student in the world, yet its public school system is riddled with problems, and every president comes up with some ambitious program to fix things, and nothing improves. And haven’t you heard that the roads and bridges are crumbling? (At least that’s what I hear from Obama.)

The GOP gleefully points at Greece and Italy as countries whose social programs have dragged down its economy to the point of default, but actually that represents only one small factor. Looking at countries like Canada and Germany that have a much larger welfare state than Greece and Italy, yet have come through the global recession better than U.S., we can see that social programs aren’t the sole cause of Greece’s financial woes.

Canada and Germany have cut back on their socialism, while the U.S. has attempted to go all in.

Looking at recent U.S. history during the Clinton administration we can see that high tax rates on the wealthy did not negatively impact the economy, nor disenfranchise the rich. Although we don’t want total socialism in this country, a little socialism to balance wealth distribution better might be healthier for us in the long run.

During the Clinton administration, there were no high tax rates on the wealthy. They were just a little higher than those now. And just as you can say that the higher tax rates under Clinton did not negatively impact the economy, I can say that the lower rates under Bush did not lower tax revenues to the government. What then allows us to think that increasing them would raise enough money cover the much, much larger deficit the U.S. government has now than it had under Bush? Absolutely nothing! Going back to the upper bracket tax rates under Clinton would do nothing to fix the budget deficit.

Although we don’t want total socialism in this country, a little socialism to balance wealth distribution better might be healthier for us in the long run.

That’s right, a little socialism. The U.S. has already gone way beyond the point of “a little socialism”, and needs to cut back on it. The federal U.S. government already spends all of its revenues on social programs. The rest is financed with borrowing. So you want more? We cannot pay for it. Not even by taxing the rich. All those “developed countries” where you claim socialism is so successful also levy heavy taxes on the middle class. So what allows us think that the U.S. can finance socialism with taxes on the rich? Absolutely nothing!

Leave a Comment